Again those islands

I do not labour under the delusion that in international politics moral principle always or even mostly rules. Power, national interest, economic consideration, diplomatic pressure, traditional legal norms - all of these and more play their part. Still, when actors in and commentators on this area themselves invoke moral argument in writing about issues in international politics, it is hard to avoid critically thinking about the force of their arguments or lack of it.

The Times on Saturday carried a pair of articles about the Falkland Islands, one underneath the other. The first, by Simon Winchester (£), proposes for the Falklands problem - one of 'only two truly contentious post-colonial problems remaining for Britain' - a Hong Kong-type solution instead of further conflict between Britain and Argentina:

[T]alks could take years. But talking is a great deal better than fighting. Just so long as the basic principle - that of exchanging sovereignty for assurances, of allowing a blue Argentine bandera to fly over Stanley's Government House, just so long as an island taxi can drive along Thatcher Drive on the left-hand side - is agreed from the start: then can some sense return to the South Atlantic, and the fear of this bizarre and needless situation spiralling out of control yet again can be averted, once and for all.

Winchester's solution exchanges sovereigty over the islands for Argentina, on the one hand, for a concession to the principle of 'self-determination for the islanders', on the other.

The second article is by Héctor Timerman, Argentine Minister of Foreign Relations. He calls Britain's claim to the islands 'a form of colonialism' (£), appealing to various UN resolutions in support of that characterization, and he also argues for the resolution of the dispute by talking.

If it can be resolved by talking, I'm all in favour. But I do feel impelled to register once more the utter absurdity from any justificatory point of view of characterizing Britain's title to the Falklands as a form of colonialism, when Argentina (laying claim to the Malvinas) is itself a national reality based on European settlement, nothing more nor less. Second, it is as with Scotland: if the self-determination of the islanders matters, then their agreement to any solution must not be negotiated away; it is indispensable.